I'm intrigued (minor politics warning) 

"mkbruin, Atlas VP" (mkbruin) 01/25/2017 at 15:07 • Filed to: None

2

12

I’ve always been intrigued by Travolta’s speech in the craptastic action flick Swordfish.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=AglrAOq_77Y

It’s an interesting premise, one upping the terrorists on their doorsteps with no political gloves. Right or wrong, is this feasible or conscienable?

For Sweden > mkbruin, Atlas VP 01/25/2017 at 15:13

9

This is why whenever someone buys a Camry, I kidnap 10 Camry drivers.

Krieger (@FSKrieger22) > mkbruin, Atlas VP 01/25/2017 at 15:35

1

Serious answer: Unless you want to become an international pariah, no.

You do this, and all of a sudden diplomacy stops working. Your willingness to employ violence becomes a crutch, not a tool . And against a death cult that’s willing to resort to anything because they don’t fear death, because they know there is no other way of achieving their goals, it’s a nonstarter unless you want to help film their recruitment reel.

Urambo Tauro > mkbruin, Atlas VP 01/25/2017 at 15:37

0

Feasible, perhaps. Conscionable, perhaps not. Diplomacy aside, accuracy is still a major concern. Can you limit your retaliation to military targets, particularly on such an escalated scale?

RallyWrench > mkbruin, Atlas VP 01/25/2017 at 15:40

0

Feasible? Sure, we have a lot of assholes and dark money in government. I always found that idea totally unconscionable though. I mean, why not put that insane investment and black ops skill to nailing actual terrorists? In this day and age especially, I don’t think the idea of one-upping a bunch of murderous, overzealous sociopaths to take them down a peg would help, they’d just get excited at the possibility of doing the same.

My bird IS the word > mkbruin, Atlas VP 01/25/2017 at 15:56

2

It would fall under the lines of “total war”. To truely fight a war, civilians become targets. The concept is horiffic. Modern reprocussions prevent us from doing this, because a total war could very easy go nuclear, in either event destroying millions of american lives. That’s what differentiates these “police actions” from honest to goodness wars, the consequences are much more severe. So we suffer terrorism and the kind of stuff in Iraq and Afghanistan because the consequences for obliterating islamic terrorism are much worse, both for the civilians in those countries and the ones at home.

AuthiCooper1300 > mkbruin, Atlas VP 01/25/2017 at 16:01

1

Travolta’s speech just applies to international terrorism the military doctrine for counterinsurgency which was used, say, by the French in Algeria. Terrorising the terrorists and the population that supports (or even just may support) them. See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Battle_of_Algiers

Of course it is very easy for all that to go out of hand. Also the collateral damage is enormous.

Draw your own conclusions.

haveacarortwoorthree2 > For Sweden 01/25/2017 at 16:02

4

And place a dent in the back bumper to signify that the original owner of that Camry has been “dealt with”

AuthiCooper1300 > Krieger (@FSKrieger22) 01/25/2017 at 16:07

0

Yours is an extremely valid point regarding the latest crop of terrorism.

You cannot do much against an enemy willing to die just to kill you (they can up the ante almost indefinitely). More violence just feeds their own propaganda machine, creating even more recruits to do the inthinkable.

wafflesnfalafel > AuthiCooper1300 01/25/2017 at 16:11

1

yep - some might argue part of the reason why France is such a target now. That public you terrorize doesn’t quickly forget...

AuthiCooper1300 > wafflesnfalafel 01/25/2017 at 16:26

0

I am not so sure. It has more to do with French nationals (in fact French-born) of (yes) Algerian origin, but also from the Maghreb in general. Much younger people whose parents seem to be even more integrated in French society than they are.

France was not particularly soft on the Indochina insurgency either and they are not planting bombs in Paris.

Having said that, the way the Algerian independence was handled was far from perfect, and got so muddled up that some elements in French society even tried to bump off De Gaulle.

DipodomysDeserti > For Sweden 01/25/2017 at 17:00

0

fascist!

DipodomysDeserti > mkbruin, Atlas VP 01/25/2017 at 17:14

4

Ask comrade Putin, he’s pretty familiar with the tactic. In short, the term is called total war, and has been used to fight counterinsurgencies throughout history. About the only time it was successful was in the Greek Civil War. However, the communist’s loss could be blamed on them deciding to fight a conventional war. Generally, it just ends up turning the population of the nation against the entity waging total war. Unless you’re going to just kill everyone (which is kind of what Putin did in Chechnya and Dagestan), then you’ll end up fighting a war of attrition against an entire population. The Algerian War is a pretty textbook example of the tactic failing. If you’re unfamiliar with the Algerian War, I’d highly recommend watching the film The Battle of Algiers . It’s a classic and does a very good job of summing up the situation. Despite being an extremely well made and praised film, it wasn’t shown for years after its release in France because it was so controversial. The French military has a history of getting movies effectively banned in France when they don’t like what they’re saying, see Kubrick’s Paths of Glory as another example of this.